Kiener Paraphrase Art Nj 1986

Published on March 2017 | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 26 | Comments: 0 | Views: 84
of 25
Download PDF   Embed   Report

Comments

Content

THE HEBREWPARAPHRASE
OF SAADIAH GAON'S
KITABAL-AMANAT WA'L-I'TIQADAT
by
RONALD C. KIENER
Saadiah Gaon (882-942) was a prolific and pioneeringteacher, sage,
and communalleaderwho pursuedhis wide-rangingstudieswith a singlemindedcommitment.'His was the firstRabbanitetranslationof the Hebrew
Bible into Arabic;his was one of the first Hebrewdictionaries;his Siddur
marked one of the first attempts to regularizethe liturgy. His Kitdb
al-Amandt wa'l-I'tiqdddt(Book of Beliefs and Opinions) was the first major

work of medievalJewishphilosophy.2Writtenduringhis renownedforced

1. See H. Malter, Saadia Gaon: His Life and Works (Philadelphia, 1921); S. W. Baron,
"Saadia's Communal Activities," in Ancient and Medieval Jewish History, ed. L. Feldman (New
Brunswick, N.J., 1972), pp. 95-127; and J. Mann, "A Fihrist of Sa'adya's Works," Jewish
Quarterly Review, n.s. 11 (1920-21): 423-428.
2. The Kitab was edited in Arabic characters by S. Landauer (Leiden, 1860); and again in
Hebrew characters with a modern Hebrew translation by Y. Kafah (Jerusalem, 1970), entitled
Sefer ha-Nivbar be-Emunot u-ve-De'ot. The Landauer edition abounds in errors, especially
regarding biblical citations. By convention, the Arabic text of Landauer is the edition cited in

1

2

RONALDC. KIENER

retirementin the year 932 C.E.,the Kitdbal-Amdndtrepresentsthe beginning of a long and noble traditionof Judeo-Arabicphilosophy.
The original Kitdb al-Amdndtconsisted of ten separate treatises on
matters pertainingto Jewish theology and ethics. Apparently Saadiah
reeditedthese individualcompositionsinto one long work,addingan introduction on epistemology.3The revisedwork is a masterfulpresentationof
normativerabbinicdoctrine,constructedmethodicallyfrom epistemological presuppositionsand culminatingin a tendentioustreatiseon ethics and
humanconduct.Throughout,Saadiahfollowedthe philosophyand method
of the Mu'taziliteKaldmtheologianswho becamerenownedfor their five
theological principles(usal), the most prominentbeing tawhfd("[God's]
unity")and 'adl("[God's]justice").4Saadiahmay havedeviatedoccasionally fromthe Mu'taziliteprogram(for example,he rejectedthe predominant
Mu'taziliteatomism),5but he ultimatelyremainedfaithfulto the contemporarytheology of Baghdad.
Saadiah'sArabicphilosophicalwork was translatedinto Hebrewtwice.
Well known is the translation entitled Sefer ha-Emunotve-ha-De'otby
JudahIbn Tibbon,preparedin 1186.6But at leasta centuryearlier,in places
presentlyunknown,a "poetical,enthusiasticand quasi-mystical"'version
of Saadiah'sdry Kitdbal-Amandtwas prepared,known today simply as
"the anonymousParaphrase."As we will see, the Paraphrasewas seized
upon by European Jewish intellectualsas one of the few authoritative

this paper.An Englishtranslationof the Arabicwasmadeby S. Rosenblatt,TheBookof Beliefs
and Opinions (New Haven, 1948).

3. Evidenceof this editingprocesscan be uncoveredby comparingthe Oxfordand Leningradrecensionsof the Judeo-Arabictext, in whichthe seventhtreatiseof the Kitabappearsin
two significantlydifferentforms,and in Saadiah'srathercumbersomemethodof occasionally
referringto otherpartsof the Kitabby treatisetitles ratherthan sequencenumbers.Landauer
publishedthe seventhtreatiseaccordingto the Oxfordrecension.W. Bacherpublishedthe
of the seventhtreatisein "Die zweite
Leningrad-thenknownas the "Petersburg"-recension
Versionvon Saadja'sAbschnitt6iberdie Wiederbelebungder Todten,"in Festschriftzum
achtzigsten Geburtstage Moritz Steinschneiders (Leipzig, 1896), Hebrew sec., pp. 98-112. See
H. Malter, Saadia Gaon, p. 194.
4. For a recent analysis of these five uSal, see W. M. Watt, The Formative Period of Islamic

Thought(Edinburgh,1973),pp. 228-249.
5. See H. A. Wolfson, "Atomismin Saadia,"Jewish QuarterlyReview,n.s. 37 (1946):
107-124.
6. Editedand annotatedby I. Kitower(Josefow, 1885).
7. Suchis the descriptionby G. Scholemin MajorTrendsin JewishMysticism(New York,
1946),p. 86.

OFKITABAL-:AMANATWA'L-I'TIQADAT
PARAPHRASE
HEBREW

3

expressionsof Jewish theology in the Holy Tongue. That the Paraphrase
was particularlydearto medievalJewishmysticsis a testimonyto the rather
strangetwist that befell Saadianicthoughtas filteredthroughthe words of
the Paraphrase.The Paraphrasewas an importantand influentialdocument
in the evolutionof AshkenaziI;Iasidictheology, the Maimonideancontroversy, and early Kabbalah.In the last century,scholarshiphas progressed
significantlytoward accountingfor these movementsin medievalJewish
intellectuallife. But it has been nearlyas long sincethe Paraphrasehas been
the focus of study.This paperseeksto considerthe relevantdata-both new
and old-pertaining to the Paraphraseand to draw appropriatenew conclusions.

There are three whole manuscriptsof the Paraphraseand many fragmentaryversions,epitomes, and one moderntranscription.
MS Vatican269 is a verybatteredmanuscript,defectiveat the beginning.
It contains 141 folios. It is writtenin a Spanishrabbinicscript.There are
indicationsthat this manuscriptis the oldest extant witness of the Paraphrase.First,it containsmorecorrectJudeo-Arabicinterpositionsthan any
of the other witnesses.Second, and less conclusively,the colophon states
that the work "was finishedin the year 4855" (nishlambi-shnatdttn"h=
1095C.E.).8It is likely that this is not the date of the copy, but ratherthat of
the originalwork itself.9
The most legiblemanuscriptis MS Vatican266, in whichthe Paraphrase
appearsin the first 137folios. Eachfolio, with the exceptionof folio 68, is in
double columns, 32-34 lines to a column. Folio 68 is writtenin one wide
column. It is of two hands,with the secondscribetakingover at the beginning of the fifth treatise(69a:1). The firstportionis writtenin a fineGerman
rabbinic script of the fourteenth century, while the remainderis either
German or French and is somewhatlater.

8. Folio 140b.L. Dukes'semendationto dttqn"his totallywithoutjustification,basedon a
need to place the date of the colophonwithinthe life span of Berechiahha-Nakdan.See H.
Ewald and Dukes, Beitrage zur Geschichteder Aeltesten Auslegung undSprachkldrungdes Alten

Testamentes(Stuttgart,1844),2:16, n. 6.
9. See Malter,SaadiaGaon,p. 361.

4

RONALDC. KIENER

The third completewitnessis MS Munich42, which containsthe
Paraphrasein folios 301a-526a.10It containsnumerousdittographies,
andtranspositions,
andis extremely
haplographies,
corrupt.In themidstof
the thirdtreatise(fol. 373a)the textabruptlybreaksoff andthenbeginsa
laterportionof thetreatise.Themissingportionof thethirdtreatiseappears
in themiddleof thefourth.Thus,theorderforthethirdandfourthtreatises
is:

ThirdTreatise
FourthTreatise

368a-373a,386b-399b,
373a-383b
384a-386b,399b-412b

Theremaining
witnessesareeitherepitomes,"fragments,12
manuscript
moderntranscriptions,'3or so defectiveas to be useless.14
The Paraphrasehad a limitedpublishinghistoryof its own; only a few
fragments-at most two of the eleven treatises-were ever brought to
press.'5Surprisingly,it enduredfor some time in Europe,copied and epitomizedat least ten timeswell into the modernera.16 It was quoted,cited,and
otherwiseplagiarizedby numerousmedievalswho could have turnedto the
Ibn Tibbon translation.Theremust have been an allureto the Paraphrase
that was abiding.
10. An initialtreatmentof this MS was madeby P. Bloch, "Die zweiteUebersetzungdes
Saadiahnischen Buches Emunoth wedeoth," Monatsschriftfair die Geschichte und Wissenschaft
des Judenthums 19 (1870): 401-414, 449-456. See M. Steinschneider, Die Hebraeischen Handschriften der K. Hof- und Staatsbibliothek (Munich, 1895), pp. 27-28.

11. MS Paris669, for example.
12. MS Parmade Rossi 769; MS Munich65/lc (fols. 20b-39a); MS Munich 120 (fols.
66b-69a);and MS Breslau183,identifiedby Poznanskias MS Heidenheim1, aboutwhichM.
Die hebraeischen
askedin 1893"wojetzt?"SeeSteinschneider's
Steinschneider
Uebersetzungen
des Mittelalters und die Juden als Dolmetscher (Berlin, 1893), p. 440.

13. MS Warsaw687, preparedby S. Poznanskibefore 1912from MS Munich42.
14. MS OxfordBodl. 1224(opp. 599;old 1185).See A. Neubauer,Catalogueof theHebrew

Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library (Oxford, 1886), 1:432.
15. Sefer ha-Tebiyyah ve-ha-Pedut (Mantua, 1556) is a reworking of the seventh treatise.

(Mantua,1556),containinga largeportionof the eighthtreatise,
Seferha-Pedutve-ha-Purqan
was reprintedas least nine times, once under the title Sefer ha-Galutve-ha-Pedut(Venice,
1634).
16. See MS Paris669, MS OxfordBodl. 1224,MS Breslau183,and numerousfragments
listed by Steinschneider,HebraeischenUebersetzungen,p. 440. Berechiah b. Natronai
ha-Nakdan's Sefer ha-Ilibbur, in The Ethical Treatises of Berakhya, ed. H. Gollancz (London,

1902),Hebrewsec. pp. 1-115, is similarlyan epitome.

HEBREWPARAPHRASE
OFKITAB AL--AMANAT WA'L-I'TIQADAT

5

The impulse for translatingthe Kitab al-Amandtfrom Arabic into
Hebrewis hardly a mystery.Saadiah'sstature as the leader of Islamicate
Jewryand championof RabbaniteJudaismmade curiosityabout his writJews. Furthermore,
ings a naturalpreoccupationof non-Arabic-speaking
those Jews of Europewho thirstedfor accessibleJewish speculativetheologicaldocumentshad veryfewHebrewtextsto whichtheycouldturn.First
and foremost,therewas a numberof rabbinichomiliesandtraditionswhich
could be utilizedin theologicaldiscussions.Then therewas the crypticSefer
An Italiancontemporaryof Saadiah,ShabbetaiDonnolo, wrotea
Yegirah.'7
A bit laterthe
cosmological/astrologicalcommentaryto the Sefer Yezirah.'8
Hebrew works of AbrahamBar Iliyya appeared,"8and another Hebrew
commentary(containing a partial Hebrew translationof Saadiah's own
Judeo-Arabiccommentaryto the Sefer Yegirah)was published by Bar
But the Arabicworksof Saadiahand
antagonistJudahb. Barzilai.20
LHiyya's
his philosophico-linguisticsuccessorsin the Middle East and Spain were
impenetrable.Not until the late twelfth centurywould these Judeo-Arabic
works be renderedinto Hebrew by the Tibbonides and the other professional translatorswho lived in Provence.2'Only then would Saadiah's
Kitab al-Amdndt,Babya Ibn Paquda'sHidaya ild Fard'idal-Qulab,Judah
Halevi's Kitab al-Radd wa'l-Dalilft al-Din al-Dhalil, and Maimonides'
Daldlat al-fHd'irinbe availableto non-Arabic-speakingJews. The impact
of these twelfth-centurytranslations on European Jewish speculative
thoughthas beenchronicledand constitutesin and of itselfa crucialchapter
in the history of Jewish philosophy. But between the tenth and twelfth
centuriesthere was a dearth of speculativematerialoutside of Islamicate
lands.Into this vacuumappearedthe Paraphrase,the firsttranslationof the
first major work of Jewish philosophy.
17. The first references to the Sefer Ye;irah appear in the sixth century C.E.Saadiah composed a Judeo-Arabic commentary to this work which was translated into Hebrew a number of
times beginning in the eleventh century. See Steinschneider, Hebraeischen Uebersetzungen,pp.
443-448; Malter, Saadia Gaon, pp. 355-359; and G. Vajda, "Sa'adya Commentateur du Livre
de la Creation," in Annuaire de
Pratique des Hautes Etudes (Paris, 1959/60), pp. 1-35.
18. Sefer
Castelli (Florence, 1880), written sometime between 946 and
ed. D. l',cole
The Universe of Shabbetai Donnolo (New York, 1976), pp. 1-13.
982. See A. Sharf,
.akhmoni,
19. A full bibliography is provided by G. Wigoder in his introduction to Bar Ijiyya's The
Meditation of the Sad Soul (New York, 1968), pp. 4-6.
20. Perusch Sepher Jezira, ed. S. J. Halberstam (Berlin, 1885), written sometime in the first
half of the twelfth century.
21. I. Twersky, "Aspects of the Social and Cultural History of Provencal Jewry," in Jewish
Society Throughthe Ages, ed. H. H. Ben-Sasson and Ettinger (New York, 1969), pp. 195-202.

6

RONALD C. KIENER

The second translation of the Kitdb al-Amandtis known to most
studentsof Saadiah'sphilosophy:it is the translationof JudahIbn Tibbon,
professionaltranslatorfor the Hebrew-speakingscholars of Provence.22
This Tibbonide translation quickly replaced the earlier effort, for the
Paraphrasewas a lavish, cacophonouslyexpansive,and inaccuraterendering, while Ibn Tibbon's translationwas terse and accurate,exceedingly
faithfulto the originalArabic.The value of Ibn Tibbon'stranslationwas
readily apparent,and it quickly became the vehicle by which Saadiah's
philosophy became known to the Jews of Europe-at at least until the
Wissenschaftscholarsrediscoveredthe Arabic original.
The playfullanguageof the Paraphrase,derivedfrom familiarliturgical
styles, helpsto accountfor its popularity.On the one hand, the Paraphrase
renderedsome of the more obscure philosophicalpassages into a fairly
simple and straightforwardrabbinic/paytanicidiom-a far cry from Ibn
Tibbon'sslavishquasi-Arabicsyntax.On the other hand,the authorof the
Paraphrasepossessed an almost mischievouscreativity in coining new
words for subtle concepts. And, as Gollancz once noted, the Paraphrase
aboundsin rabbiniccitationsand biblicalallusionsnot found in eitherthe
With this stylistic feature,
Kitdbal-Amdndtor Ibn Tibbon'stranslation.23
the Paraphrasepossesseda compellingair of traditionalismwhich the Ibn
Tibbon translationneveracquired.These two factorstogether-the sometimes simple, sometimesconfoundingHebrew languageand syntax; and
secondlythe constantrabbinicand biblicalallusions-help to accountfor
the Paraphrase'searly popularityand widespreadacceptance.
But the Paraphrasedid not garner only praise for Saadiah;a third
feature-its long-windedness-did not go over well with most of Saadiah's
Evenin the originalArabic
detractorsand some of Saadiah'ssupporters.24
Saadiahdisplayedan annoyingtaste for repetitivelists and verboseturnsof
phrase.The Paraphrasefreelystretchednumerouspassageswith a metrical,
rhymingexpansion,and as a resultthe Paraphraseis some 50 percentlonger
than the originalKitdbal-Amdndt,alreadya substantialwork. It is the very
length of the Paraphrasethat generatedthe numerous compendia and
22. See Steinschneider, Hebraeischen Uebersetzungen, p. 439; Malter, Saadia Gaon, pp.
370-373. Malter never published his promised critical edition. Whereas Ibn Tibbon followed
the "Petersburg" recension, the Paraphrase is more faithful to the Oxford text. See Hebraeischen Uebersetzungen,p. 441, and Landauer's introduction to the Kitcab,p. viii.
23. Ethical Treatises of Berakhya, editor's introduction, p. xli.
24. See Malter, Saadia Gaon, pp. 283-284, n. 607.

HEBREWPARAPHRASE
OF KITAB AL-AMANAT WA'L-1'TIQADAT

7

epitomes, and these in turn helped to make certainaspects of Saadiah's
magnumopus, now distilled,popularin Europe.25
The Paraphraseis both a renderingof Saadiah'sKithb al-Amdndtinto
Hebrewand a creationof a newvocabularyand Hebrewphilosophicalprose
style. As a translation,the Paraphraseis but a faint and falteringreproduction of the Arabicoriginal,generallyconveyinglittle morethan the gist and
outward structure of the exceedingly complex and technical Kitab alAmandt. As literary creation, the Paraphrasesurvives as a remarkable
hermeneuticalinvention which, through linguistic and stylistic features,
createda new Saadiah,a new Saadianictheology,and a new (thoughlittleused) theologicalvocabulary.

Though we cannot identify the paraphrasist,we are certain of a few
thingsregardinghis abilities.He was not an accuratetranslator,nor was he
as proficientan Arabistas the later JudahIbn Tibbon. In this respect,the
paraphrasisttypifiesmanypre-Tibbonidetranslators,such as the eleventhcenturyByzantineKaraitetranslatorswho undertookto translatethe vast
body of Judeo-ArabicKaraiteliteratureand who have been found wanting
in recentevaluationsof their ability.26The problemwas widespread:in the
Rabbanite world of Provence, Judah Ibn Tibbon complained about the
inaccuracies of the early translations.27 The Paraphrase easily falls into the

category of flawed translation,a maladythe Tibbonidessought to rectify
with their new round of translations.
As an exampleof the Paraphrase'sinadequacies,I presenthere the text
of a philosophically dense Kaldm proof for the createdness of the world, one

of the many examplesof paraphrasticmistranslation.
25. In general, the epitomes tended to pass over the cosmological treatises of the original
Kitab al-Amandt, concentrating instead on the more "ethical" treatises, such as chapters 4, 5,
and 6. See, for example, how the epitomist of MS Paris 669 opens the first treatise with the
phrase "A version selected from the second scroll" (nusab me-'inyyan megillah sheniyah, fol.
8a), and then reduces more than thirty folio pages in MS Vatican 266 to one folio.
26. Z. Ankori, Karaites in Byzantium: The Formative Years, 970-1100 (New York, 1959),
pp. 191-193.
27. His complaints may have been specifically directed at the Paraphrase. See his introduction to the translation of Babya Ibn Paquda's Hiddyah, entitled Sefer Hovot ha-Levavot
(Warsaw, 1875), p. 4.

RONALD C. KIENER

8

Ibn Tibbon (Josefow
ed.): 56

Para.,MS Vat.266,
fol. 14b:1-2

Kitab(ed. Landauer):32

The Paraphraseis in wordcount morethan triplethe lengthof eitherthe
Kitabal-Amandtor the Ibn Tibbon translation.This is partly due to the
typical hendiadys and pleonasms of the Paraphrase, such as the Paraphrase's
mugbalim ve-niq avim
be-shi'ur
ve-takhlit
ve-heker
for the single
Arabicword
But there
is also
a horrendous
mistranslation
in

mutanahiydn.

this passage from which the paraphrasist never fully recovers.
The from
first Aristotelian
of the four tradition,
Kaldm proofs
for the createdness
of the world,
derived
can be
statedsuccinctlyin threepropo-

sitions:first, the world is finite in magnitude;second, the force within the
world, that "which preserves" the world, is finite; third, a finite force cannot

produce
Hence,the world must have a beginningand an
end.
Theinfinite
secondexistence.
propositionis defendedby the statement"it is not possible
that an infiniteforceexistwithina finitebody."28
The
translation.
ThisTibbonide
is partly due to the
1

that

an

infinite

force

exist

within

a finite

body."

The

Tibbonide

translation

28. For a treatment of this proof, see H. A. Wolfson, The Philosophy of the Kalam
(Cambridge, Mass., 1976), pp. 374-382; and H. Davidson, "The Principle That a Finite Body

HEBREWPARAPHRASE
OF KITAB AL-AMANAT WA'L-I'TIQADAT

9

faithfully reproducesthis statement. But the paraphrasisthas clumsily
reversedthe sense of the argumentand now employs the statementas a
buttressfor the first proposition,namely,that the world is finite in magnitude:"for it is impossiblethat [thepower]be boundedin a massthat is not
bounded;and also it is impossiblethat a determinatemeasureresidein a
rather,just as their
body that is neitherdeterminednor limited [nitkal];29
be
it
is
that
their
forceis determinateso
body limitedand deterappropriate
minate." Thus, the buttressingstatementno longer supportsthe second
proposition,and in the Paraphraseit becomesa furtherdemonstrationof
the world's finitude.A cruciallink in the argumentis foreverlost.
Not only is precisionlost in the torrentof words, but accuracyis also
tossed aside. In the hermeneuticalprocess,the paraphrasisthas so embellished the argumentas to renderit inaccurate,and the embellishmentonly
serves to compoundthe problem.
Occasionally,and despite his indefatigablecreativity,the paraphrasist
was unableto translatean Arabicterminto Hebrew.Sometimeshe offered
both his Hebrew approximationalong with the Arabic original, as if to
allow the readerto decidefor himself.Oncehe even insertedinto his translation an Arabic phrase not present in the Kitdb al-Amdndt.30Thus,
numerousArabismsand Arabicphrasesappearin the text, particularlyas
preservedin MS Vatican269. A preliminarylist of someof theseArabismsis
providedbelow:
i
MS Vatican266, fol. 6b, col. 1: inny
K[om]. Ed. Landauer,p. 13: 'ilmmd
ilaihi, "necessarilyinferredknowledge."
dafa'atal-dariarah
MS Vat. 266, 9a:1: nan x. Ed. Landauer,p. 19: al-majarrah,"the Milky
Way."

MS Vat. 269, fol. 13b, 11.19-21: n~il
i•

[vocalized!]. Ed. Landauer, p. 29:

amranwa-nahiyan,"commandand prohibition."

Ed. Landauer, p. 29: al-ld'ah wa'l-ma'piyah, "obedience and
n,;rml inn.
rebellion."
Can Contain Only Finite Power," in Studies in Jewish Religious and Intellectual History, ed.
Stein and Loewe (University, Ala., 1979), pp. 75-92.
29. An unattested nifal form of TKL, derived from KLH with a performative tav: TaKhLrt.
Ben-Yehudah notes a paytanic hifil form of TKL. See E. Ben-Yehudah, Thesaurus Totius
Hebraitatis (New York, 1959), p. 7747a-b.
30. Ibn Tibbon retains the Arabic only once. See Sefer ha-Emunot, pp. 59 f.

RONALD C. KIENER

10

nfK1 nmon. Ed. Landauer, p. 29: al-basandt wa'l-saydt, "good and evil

deeds."
No
MS Vat.266, 13b:1: nz rra (MS Vat.269, fol. 13breadsannn K carrI).
the
"title
of
from
in
text.
Judeo-Arabic
al-kitab,
?adr
Probably
parallel
book."
Ed. Landauer,p. 41: sanawbariyan,"coneMS Vat. 266, 18b:l:
"•2nn.
shaped."
.
Ed.
61: al-ittifdq
MS Vat. 266, 27a:1: pmonx...
inDn:. Landauer, p.
i•,...
"chance
occurrence."
bi-ittifdq,
...
ryx [!]. Ed. Landauer, p. 145: wa'l-jabr
MS Vat. 269, fol. 64b, 1. 2:
i'l' 1 t'

wa'l-'adl,"predestinationand divinejustice."

Ed. Landauer, p. 207-8:
MS Vat. 266, 85b:1 0mno nn'i1 -i5x
,oin'.
bi'l-karr wa-yusammunhual-tandsukh, "return or transmigration."

Anotherdistinguishingfeatureof the Paraphrase,in the firsttreatisein
particular,are phrasesconstructedfromthe Sefer Yegirah,a workwhichhas
beenvariouslydatedsometimebetweenthe secondand sixthcenturiesC.E.31
One such peculiarlinguisticcreationderivedfrom the Sefer Yezirahreverberatedinto later theologicalliterature.It is what ultimatelybecame the
standardHebrewformulafor "creationex nihilo":yesh me-ayin(MS Vat.
266, fols. 14a:1,18a:2,79a:1,87a:1,87b:2),used to translatethe Arabicid
minshay',"creationfromnothing."32 Thisis derivedfromSefer Yegirah2:6:
ve-'asahet einoyeshno,"He [God]madethat whichwas not into that which
is." Of the earlymedievals,SolomonIbn Gabirol(1021-1057) madeuse of
this passagein his sacredpoetry,thoughin a way that avoidedthe formulaic
construction and was far removed from the ex nihilo signification.33
AbrahamIbn Ezra(1089-1164) used the formulain his short commentary
to Genesis,but this usageis attributableto his knowledgeof the Paraphrase,
for the phrase was not widely in use in Hebrew until the late twelfth
31. On the Sefer Ye;irah, see G. Scholem, Major Trends, pp. 75-78; idem, Reshit
ha-Qabbalah ve-Sefer ha-Bahir (Jerusalem, 1979), pp. 1-59.
32. On the terminology for "creation ex nihilo" in medieval Hebrew and Arabic philosophy, see H. A. Wolfson, "The Meaning of Ex Nihilo in the Church Fathers, Arabic and
Hebrew Philosophy, and St. Thomas," in Medieval Studies in Honor of J. D. M. Ford
(Cambridge Mass., 1948), pp. 355-370; reprinted and cited from Studies in the History of
Philosophy and Religion, ed. Twersky and Williams (Cambridge, Mass., 1973), 1:207-221; and
more recently The Philosophy of the Kalam, pp. 355-372.
33. In Ibn Gabirol's Keter Malkhut: li-mshokh meshekh ha-yesh min ha-ayin, "to draw up
the film of the existent from the nothing." See Ha-Shirah ha-'Ivrit be-Sefarad u-ve-Provans,ed.
J. Schirmann (Jerusalem, 1959), vol. 1, sec. 1:262.

HEBREW
PARAPHRASE
OFKITABAL.-AMANATWA'L-I'TIQADAT

11

century.34 Previousassumptionsto the contrary,the Tibbonideseschewed

the phrase yesh me-ayin,preferringinstead the more literal lo mi-davar,
"not from a thing."35
Thus,we may regardthe paraphrasist'scoinageof the
formulayesh me-ayinfor "creationex nihilo"as the first instanceof this
now famous Hebraism.36
As a literarycreation, the Paraphrasecontains two distinct styles: a
predominantnarrativeprose style (of which the passagecited above from
the first treatiseis a fine example),in which both neologismsand poetic
parallelismsappear with moderate frequency;and a less frequentstyle
composedof "poeticsequences"in whichthe parallelismsincreasedramatically to a lilting crescendo,and creativelynew derivedforms and coinages
abound. The Paraphrasewavers between a sporadicallycarefulliteralism
and a wildlyexpansiveconcatenationof phraseswhichonly vaguelyreproduce the originalArabic. For example:
MS Vat. 266, fol. 61a:1-2
mi!)n-r r jrlau nrimrnl5Dnvr1 1=1

nK

Ml

111,11,31,

nimy-11

nx

-.12

7MI31

131Y1u

Innu

71YU521

t tpn

1XI31

nlrLt)3-.

xNl.

rmrm
nri) vv.
nx m

ivrif5 invy 5y a
t
NXtr-)5r

nx

5D

nx

i 7513-.

n rnt I~ml

1

n1

n~tV

i2TY51

Kitdb(ed. Landauer):147

Kin
xri rim

vntl

I -)-IM

.)3E

t3-.15

5y

t3.7x

tro-m-.

-.ItlYl

t3.)5151

)iI

jivini

tnlnix

nXI

rurlu
5nl

nyn

plu

t3.)

X

)Yln

nimu1

? Y

J~.A5

LS;r
(,LL,

xKl.

53n

-.1imm

tor.13

-.1 31

(!)

tnnyn

u)I.) 53

nx

nwrlr

rimm-.1

Kv.1

trnrl

Q

0Xj5 &4

L;Dy~

t3.-I- only t)il trimin nrrnlyn
rnXn- 03-.511xim
Imm 1731rm
r5D
Kin
(!)53DI-1Irpi rnn5y

dkI 9jULL rj

c~4 ~Y(

l

Jj?

Irm,1

3'3? )

JI

Lij"3 Ij?

a3mul31

triv

)izvv -Ty mn=i K11
m o i ?trl1 a2r1?r mimwt?
-To niwix2K
?Dvw nit rim Kmin
?rim"nl
1731
mm
ri
n 712nr mr)
n nnr ix-miripi
[
rrv Kin n*Dxn
7-)rm
i
ivi in rK
r tr-m
trn) x rt
tvnyu1
rxt
'
rim
i=5=
min
"m
t
t -)x~y
min
rimmm
w~ n
m5b
n'yn
rr imi
-nrnum
tra u "mm
mrltvlm
ym,
min
mnovw
nim
roirm
ny
imoD
1
3
5
3
y
i
m
i
m
o
i
n
x
n
x
n
x
ronmroi
yri
tl
u33ivi
7tprim
iniMri
inL~wnn
nimi

vr7~n

n-12

5*ow

it~rorm

n-mi
anxv

3ypi

tnnirmn
mixi

tK~

imn

-I Y-)Wl

tnrimp
in

t3-03DID."I

15-

-Ily.)Ivl~~~l

[t31m1m]
.mrm~n

5m

trn-rm

m

trvirn

-)Yfn

rimmi

tPrl'm.)I5

tri-m'I2-

tlmrmi

tmmp25itmriirmi

n

[PT3-)35y~twl
m

tvrnuoi

ri-'7lB

rmn

n n~

ri-mim

7-mrw
ni5-)Yi

tmmyo

34. See his comment to Genesis 1:1.
35. Judah al-Harizi also used the literal lo mi-davar in his translation of Maimonides'
Guide. See his translation, also entitled Moreh Nevukhim, ed. L. Schlossberg (London, 1851),
vol. 2:20a, 21a.
36. The Paraphrase was quite popular among mystics of the twelfth and thirteenth cen-

12

RONALD C. KIENER

This passage demonstratesa number of key features typical of the
Paraphrase.First,it is highlyexpansive,morethan doublethe lengthof the
Arabic.37Second, it abounds in assonantal rhyming parallelismsof an
occasionalmetricquality.The passageaboveis admittedlyan extremecase,
but it is not unique.Third,the passagecontainsa numberof rarerabbinic
words, such as moranim,"storehouse";38
qetidra'ot,"chair";39
i"la'ot (or
i;tallut), "shoe-lining";40gastreihem, "their military camps";41and
"theircastles."42 Finally,even an air of esotericismis injected
tarqoneihem,
into the passage by the seeminglyinnocent phrase u-mevinet ha-otiyyot,
"[bythis wisdomman]also comesto knowthe letters,"a phrasecompletely
absentin the Arabicoriginal.By invokingthe verbmevinwith the letters,the
Paraphraseconveysa senseof "gnostic"legitimacyto Hebrewletter speculation and manipulation.
As previousstudentsof the Paraphrasehave alreadynoted, the Paraphrasecontainsnumerouswords,phrases,and constructionswhichemulate
the neologistic Hebrewof Eleazarha-Kallir,the Palestinianpaytan who
lived and died sometime before Saadiah'slifetime.43As one of the first
Palestinianliturgicalpoets, Kallir's unique treatmentof the Hebrewlanguage influencedsubsequentPalestinianpoets. Neo-Kallirisminfluenced
Babylonian,Italian,German,and northernFrenchstyleswell into the thirEvenSaadiah'sown difficultpoetic style exhibitsKallirian
teenthcentury.44
turies. Thus, we may further surmise that the popularity of this phrase amongst medieval
kabbalists in more properly attributable to the Paraphrase than the Tibbonide translation. On
the popularity of the phrase yesh me-ayin amongst kabbalists, see Scholem, Major Trendsp. 25;
idem, On the Kabbalahand Its Symbolism (New York, 1969), pp. 101 f.; idem, "Sch6pfung aus
Nichts und Selbstverschrankung Gottes," in Uber einige Grundbegriffedes Judenthums(Frankfurt a. M., 1970), pp. 53-89.
37. Moses b. Hisdai (Taku), who had the Paraphrasebefore him, complained that Saadiah
"could have written in five tracts what he writes in fifteen." See MS Paris H711:14a, published
by J. Dan in facsimile form as KeTAV TAMIM (Jerusalem, 1984).
38. B.T. Bava Batra 6a.
39. J.T. Sukkah 55a.
40. Tosefta Bava Batra 4:6.
41. From gastra, B.T. Shabbat 121a.
42. From tarqa, Targum Proverbs 25:24.
43. Saadiah mentions Kallir in his Agron (ed. N. Allony [Jerusalem, 1969], p. 154), which
was composed in 902 (see Allony's introduction, p. 23). He mentions Kallir again as an
"ancient" poet in his commentary to the Sefer Ye;irah entitled Kitab al-Mabadd(ed. Kafab
[Jerusalem, 1972], p. 49); which was written in 931 (ibid., p. 86).
44. A. M. Habermann, Toledot ha-Piyyul ve-ha-Shirah(Ramat Gan, 1972), 1:40-49; and
2:11, 23. On Kallirian style in Byzantine Italy, see J. Schirmann, Studies in the History of
Hebrew Poetry and Drama [Hebrew] (Jerusalem, 1979), 2:18-29.

HEBREW
PARAPHRASE
OFKITABAL-AMANATWA'L-I'TIQADAT

13

forms.45 The Kallirite style is best summarized by the Spanish scholar
Abraham Ibn Ezra:
There are in R. Eleazarha-Kallir'spoetry four difficultfeatures:the first is
that most of his poems are riddlesand parables. . . the secondfeatureis that
his poems are interspersedwith talmudicphrases,and it is well knownthat a
numberof expressionsappearin the Talmudthat are not of the Holy Tongue
... the third featureis that even when words are derivedfrom the Holy
Tongue,they containmanyerrors... the fourthfeatureis that all his poems
are full of midrashotand aggadot.46

These stylistic features are all amply evidenced in the Paraphrase. The
two passages cited above each are representative of the two different narrative styles, but together they display the Kallirite proclivity for new and rare
constructions and Hebraicized Aramaicisms. Many of these Hebrew coinages have already been treated by Zunz and Bloch.47 Some of the most
unique and recurring terms are qene;, "proof," and the hifil maqni;, "to
prove";48sar'af (or shar'aj), "mind" or "to think" as a verb;49da'deq or
mitda'deq, "contemplation" or "to contemplate";50gimmuy, "intention";
qishyon, "question";"1and sa'an (or so'an), "limit."152
Very few of these peculiarities in style and language help in identifying
the time or place of the composition of the Paraphrase, other than to say
that the paraphrasist participated in paytanic stylistics and drew from such
Hebrew sources as the Sefer Ye;irah. We must look to the external evidence
provided by the manuscripts and other authors who cite the Paraphrase.
The earliest possible date for the Paraphrase is provided by the colophon
to MS Vatican 269, which, as we have already stated, provides the date of
1095 C.E. This date in the colophon must serve as a terminusad quem for the

45. But see M. Zulay, Ha-Askolah ha-Paylanit shel Rav Sa'adyah Ga'on (Jerusalem, 1964).
46. Commentary to Ecclesiastes 5:1. See Zulay, Ha-Askokah, pp. 16-18; and L. Zunz's still
valuable treatment in Literaturgeschichteder synagogalen Poesie (Berlin, 1865), pp. 29-64.
47. L. Zunz, Gesammelte Schriften (Berlin, 1876), 3:234-237, and Bloch, "Die zweite
Uebersetzung," pp. 412-414, 452f.
48. Ben-Yehudah, Thesaurus, p. 6038a-b.
49. From Ps. 94:19. See Ben-Yehudah, Thesaurus, pp. 7620b-7621a.
50. Literally, "to think subtly."
51. Ben-Yehudah, Thesaurus, p. 6250b. On the -on ending in Saadianic poetry, see Zulay,
Ha-Askolah, pp. 38-39.
52. Ben-Yehudah, Thesaurus, p. 3898b.

14

RONALD C. KIENER

Paraphrase,whilethe dateof compositionof the Arabicoriginal(932 C.E.)is
the terminusa quo.It is not imprudentto concludethat the Paraphrasewas
made duringthis 163-yearperiod.
If we wereto disregardthe evidenceof the colophon,we wouldnexthave
to turn to the earliestcitationof the Paraphrasein other datableworks. In
this case, we are led to no earlierthan the last half of the twelfthcentury,
whenthe Paraphraseis citedin both FranceandSpain.In FranceBerechiah
b. Natronaiha-Nakdanboth epitomizedand quotedthe Paraphraseextensively in his Sefer ha-fHibbur("The Compendium") and his Sefer ha-Ma;ref

("The Book of the Refinery"),the latterwrittenaround1170.53The former
is largely, though not exclusively,an epitome of the Paraphrase.Other
authors,notablyAbrahamIbn Ezra,SolomonIbn Gabirol,and BabyaIbn
Paquda,are cited. The second and chronologicallylater work containsno
new Saadianicmaterialover and above the Hibbur.
Berechiahflourishedin the secondhalfof the twelfthcentury.As his title
implies,he was apparentlya vocalizerof biblicalmanuscripts.His place of
originwas France,thoughJ. Jacobsattemptedto identifyhim witha certain
Benedictusle Puncteurof Oxford,makinghim an importantEnglishJew.54
Jacobs'stheoryis untenable,for Berechiah'sown epitomeof the Paraphrase
is dedicatedto "the patronR. Meshullam,"none otherthan Meshullamb.
Jacob of Lunel, the sponsor of the great Rabbanitetranslationprojectin
southernFrance.55This dedicationdates, locates, and identifiesBerechiah
as a memberof Meshullam'simmensetranslationfactoryin Lunel.
Many attemptshave been made over the last centuryto identifyBerechiahas the authorof the Paraphrase.The identificationof Berechiahas the
paraphrasistwas originallymade by J. Fidrst,though by implicationL.
Dukes first raised the connection.56And indeed, Berechiahproducedan
abbreviatedversionof the Paraphrasein his Hibbur.However,thereis not
the slightestevidencethat Berechiahwas conversantwith Arabic, for his
other known translationefforts constitute a Lapidariumand a version of
53. For the date of composition of these two works, see Gollancz's introduction, Ethical
Treatises of Berakhya, p. 1.
54. See the exchange between Jacobs and A. Neubauer in Jewish QuarterlyReview, o.s. 1
(1889): 182-183, and 2 (1890): 322-333, 520-526.
55. See Ethical Treatises of Berakhya, p. 1. On Meshullam, see I. Twersky, Rabad of
Posquieres (Cambridge, Mass., 1962), p. 12-14.
56. First, Bibliotheca Judaica (Leipzig, 1863), 2:210; Ewald and Dukes, Beitriage,2:16, n.
6.

HEBREW
PARAPHRASE
OFKITABAL-AMANATWA'L-I'TIQADAT

15

Adelard of Bath's Questiones Naturales.57Conceivably, this identification

was basedon the contentsof MS Munich42 (the MS most often citedin the
nineteenth century), in which the Paraphraseappears immediatelypreceding Berechiah'stranslationof the QuestionesNaturales.58Despite this
very circumstantialassociation,it is now generallyregardedthat the once
promisingidentificationis fruitless.59
In Spain the anti-ChristianpolemicistJacob b. Reuben quoted extensively from the Paraphrasein the twelfthchapterof his Milhamotha-Shem
(composed 1170).60This book is cast in the form of a dialoguebetweena
Christian (ha-mekhabed, "the denier") and a Jew (ha-meyabed, "the

uniter"), and is a literaryexpansion of a private "disputation"that the
In the final chapterof
youngJacobheld witha friendlypriestin Gascogne.61
the book thereappearsa compilationof variousphilosophicdemonstrations
which seeks to prove that the Messiahhad not yet arrived.In this chapter
Jacob cites Isaac Israeli, Abraham Ibn Ezra, Abraham Bar Hiyya, and most

prominentlySaadiahGaon. Jacobquotesat lengthnumerouspassagesfrom
the seventhand eighth treatisesof the Paraphrase,devotedrespectivelyto
the doctrines of bodily resurrectionand messianic redemption. These
passagesare typicallyintroducedby the phraseamarha-ga'on,"the gaon
said," or amar he-hakham ha-gadol be-sifro, "the great sage said in his

book."62 It is open to some doubt whetherJacob drew from a copy of the
full text of the Paraphraseor from an epitome,such as Berechiah'sHlibbur
or MS Paris 669, for these epitomes delete but a small amount from the
content of the seventh and eighth treatises.In either case, Malter'sinitial
evaluationof the Milbhamot
ha-Shemas a valuabletool in determiningthe

57. On Berechiah's knowledge of Arabic, see Gollancz in Ethical Treatises, pp. xxxix-xl.
An early and fairly accurate bibliography of Berechiah's works is provided by H. Gross, Gallia
Judaica (Paris, 1897), 2:180-185. See Steinschneider, Hebraeischen Uebersetzungen, pp.
958-962. Berechiah also composed poetry; see I. Davidson, Thesaurus of Medieval Hebrew
Poetry (New York, 1933), vol. 4, s.v. "Berakhyah b. Natronay ha-Naqdan."
58. Steinschneider, Hebraeische Bibliographie 3 (1860): 44, n. 1; and Hebraeischen Uebersetzungen, p. 440.
59. Zunz, Bloch (for his own reasons), Neubauer, Gollancz, Steinschneider, Malter, and
Porges were all in agreement on this point.
60. For the date of composition of this work, see Y. Rosenthal's introduction in Sefer
Milhamot ha-Shem (Jerusalem, 1963), p. viii.
61. See Rosenthal's introduction, Milbamot ha-Shem, p. ix.
62. Milfhamotha-Shem, pp. 157, 159, 161, et al.

16

RONALD C. KIENER

text of the Paraphrase ought to be ignored, for the text is a derivative witness of little textual value.63
A third witness to the Paraphrase from the twelfth century is more
problematic: it is the Shir ha-Yihud ("Hymn of Unity"), an anonymous
poem deriving from the earliest German pietist circles of the Rhine River
valley.64Unlike the other witnesses, the Shir ha- Yizud does not cite Saadiah
by name, nor can it be dated with any precision. The poem, composed at
least a generation before R. Judah
(d. 1217), is essentially an
meter of the second treatise of the
ecstatic reworking set to rhyme andhe-.Hasid
Paraphrase.
The first to recognize the link between Saadiah and the Shir was R.
Moses b. Ijisdai (Taku), the bitter anti-Saadiah polemicist who lived in the
midst of the pietist Rhineland.65 He attacked the Shir ha-Yihud-and by
implication Saadiah-for its confused and heretical theology.

There is a poem called "Song of Unity," and I have heardthat R. Bezalel
composedit-but not all cf it-from the Book of Beliefs,for from the verse
ed. Habermann,33:97],66 R.
"God Almighty" [Shaddai;Shir ha-Yihbud,
Samuelcomposedit. In it is written:"Everythingis in You, and You are in
everything"[25:39],"You surroundall and fill all, and with the becomingof
all, You are in all" [26:49],"Beforethe all, You wereall; and with the beginningof all, You filledall" [27:65].If this is the case,thenwhyis it also written:
"TheJudgesits as an AncientOne,His hosts to the leftand right"[29:18]?It is
as if He were a createdform! Thus, the Torah opinion is that anyonewho
recites [the poem] is a defiler.67

63. Saadia Gaon, p. 368.
64. The poem was published with critical commentary by A. Habermann in Shirei
ha-Yibud ve-ha-Kavod(Jerusalem, 1948), pp. 13-45. For a recent discussion of the poem's
position in German pietist tradition, see J. Dan, The Esoteric Theology of Ashkenazi fasidism
[Hebrew] (Jerusalem, 1968), 47-48.
65. On this individual, see J. Epstein, "Moise Tako b. Hisdai et son Ketab Tamim,"Revue
des etudes juives 61 (1911): 60-70; and more recently J. Dan's introduction to the facsimile
edition of the Ketav Tamim (Jerusalem, 1984), pp. vii-xxvii.
66. This verse of the Shir contains the acrostic "Samuel."
67. MS Paris H711: 54a.

PARAPHRASE
OFKITABAL-AMANAT WA'L-I'TIQADAT
HEBREW

17

Observantcriticthat he was, Mosesb. HIisdaicriticizedthe Hymnfor its
ecstatic panentheismand correctlyidentified the source for this deviant
thought: the Paraphrase,identified by Moses b. Hisdai as the Sefer
ha-Emunot.Moses b. Hisdai also objectedto the notion that God is portrayedas a physicalform,and herewe touch upon a secondmotif sharedby
the Shir ha-Yibudand the Paraphrase:the existence of a created and
resplendentKavod("Divine Glory")which acts as God's revelatoryagent
and immanentpresence.68And indeed,there are a few paraphrasticdeviations fromSaadiah'shighlytranscendenttheologyof the Kavodwhich,when
takentogether,providea visualpanentheistcoloringto Saadiah'swork.The
most importantaspect of this theologicalshift is the Kavoddoctrineas it
appearsin the Paraphrase.

Para. MS Vat. 266, fol. 41b:1

Kitdb(ed. Landauer):99

7-111rO Irmrrumm
Y-)i
n rcrurn 1-IYllyn Y-...
n
r
nix:xnr
ai wxrrm

*z nix
i
wxvin'v

n~~ri
-Ilx- y ln3 -~
wxn
1117-112in

rran
trx?!Dvll
t3S)xw3-;I17m
17rrn

rinly

v jn

L~C~lIrm~~

px?~roninniroi
xron nzy rim rnirminwt
mwi
mnrr
-i )xn imi nix
rin
tr
rz
ni nim
-rrrn
.rn
mn rn
..rnr
mnr~n
-)?:
;w nrrnmv
inix wirr vn -ronml
z P-)-)
-z n-rnl
r miv
mr
imrrmrmv
-mrm
i i
jr!*vnrzn
imun

silp-min

my'1~

wmrsi
rorny

nx

n

rmn-

=3

nz7

nx

irnon

r;Iyn-)

~-yPrW>

tY

&z#~l(
i

J9 4

5:x

nyr i

mun

U_(Yyi;~~
DjLl yU5

*"ml

in

'mvv~~sv
In

'"

51~

n~~;Irnrippi~7rui pr~1?1
B~l

L;. ~gL
~1wi nrm71;51b ;71ib

68. On the Kavod doctrine in the original Saadianic formulation, see A. Altmann,
"Saadya's Theory of Revelation: Its Origin and Background," in Saadya Studies, ed. E. I. J.
Rosenthal (Manchester, 1943), pp. 4-25.

18

RONALD C. KIENER

Paraphrase.:
... Know that this form is createdand broughtnew into existence, and so are the Throneof the firmamentand those that carryit-all of
them are created.And the Creatorcreatedthem from a shininglight and a
shiningsplendor,so that it would becomeclearto the sent prophetsthat the
Creator,may His mentionbe glorified,is the very one that speakswith him
and the very one who sent him, as I shall explainin the thirdscroll.But this
formis a wondrousand supernalformin the imageof the lofty andmarvelous
angels;and it is awesomein its clearand brightand illuminatedappearance,
shiningin its light like the light of the Shekhinah.And for this reason it is
called the Kavodof the Lord and His Shekhinah.... And the sages calledit
Shekhinah,andmanytimesthe lightshinesforthwithneitherimagenorform.
Butthe Maker,may His mentionbe raised,lifts up His servantthe prophet
and lifts him and bringshim up and honorshim whenHe causeshim to hear
His word fromthe shiningand illuminatedand wondrousand createdform,
from the shininglightandglitteringsplendor.And it is calledthe Kavodof the
Lord, as I have explained.
Kitdb.:Ouransweris thatthis formis somethingcreated,and thatlikewisethe
Throne,the firmament,and the carriersof the Throneare all created.God
createdthemout of lightin orderto verifyto His prophetsthatit was He who
inspiredthem with His words, as we shall explainin the thirdchapter.This
form is nobler than the angels, magnificentin character,resplendentwith
light, which is called the Kavodof the Lord.... It is this which the sages
characterizedas Shekhinah.Sometimesthereappearsa lightwithoutthe form
of a person.God confersdistinctionon His prophetby allowinghim to heara
propheticrevelationfromthatmajesticformcreatedout of lightand calledthe
Kavodof the Lord, as we have explained.
The observant reader should note that through extensive use of parallelism, the Paraphrase accentuates a visual light motif, thereby stressing the
resplendent and permeated nature of the ubiquitous Kavod. This glittering
and resplendent Kavodestablishes a divine immanence that easily lends itself
to the creation of a visually startling cosmogony, such as is contained in the
German pietists' Kavod doctrine.69

69. See Dan, Esoteric Theology, pp. 84-103. See M. Idel, "The World of Angels in Human
Form" [Hebrew], in Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought,vol. 3, Studies in Mysticism Presented
to Isaiah Tishby(Jerusalem, 1983/84), pp. 15-19, in which Judah Halevi is regarded as a crucial
ideational link between rationalists and the kabbalistic theory that the divine realm appears in
human form. Quite possibly the Paraphrase may have served a similar purpose.

HEBREWPARAPHRASE
OF KITAB AL-AMANAT WA'L-I'TIQADAT

19

Anotherfeatureof the Paraphrase,left unmentionedby Moses b. HIisdai,
is the infusion of an esotericisminto Saadiah'stheology of the Godhead.
Typical expressionsof this esotericistspirit appearthroughoutthe second
treatise of the Paraphrase, as in she-hu daq mufla ve-ne'elam ve-hevyon

ve-ganusve-;afun mi-kol, "for He is subtly wonderful and hidden and
secretedand disguisedand concealedfrom all." This statementis accom-

panied by a bold panentheist shift: she-hu meqif et kol ha-'olam ve-hu
meqayyem me-'amidat ha-kol, "He encompasses all the universe and pre-

serves [it] by the enduranceof all."70Takenin theirtotality, these kinds of
passagesprovideda firm foundationfor pietist speculationsregardingthe
nature and workingsof the divinity.71
Of both doctrinal and lexicographicalinterestare the many passages
from the Shir ha-Yibudwhich are drawn directly from the Paraphrase.
Thesetextualadaptationshavebeen fullydocumentedby A. Berliner.72
One
of the most powerfuland obvious adaptationsappearsin the hymnfor the
fifth day, establishinganotherstrong esoteric theme.

Shir ha-Yihud, 36:48-37:60

MS Vat.266,fol. 33a:1

r=-nmo/ i1rix
mmrrn n1o
1wirmKxx3 p--r 1-')
p /1 pon
on
Ln p
Dlbi ?z
f

ninoi

/

?Dn
L?Dnl

tn

31IV
jr~LY

?Dn

lj

3

jl

)Yl

/

31IV3

LDn

-1

?DD

L?lv)

~n
?n
-.1 31/

?Irl

L?D

*h9L

Ivy
Invi

1

7iyn

tftn

L?zn
.1 31

LDn

t n / lin
/ pinn i)r nrr
i
3? piny
ipi
i rz rnnwm,
x? / rin
t
rim
xi
,
I, rxirm nzl

am

.I1non

L~3 71
71n L~9
l 717
1Kt,/ y~w
Ivi vv1
* t rTy~
rixIN
-lvx71
y~u Ibv1z XNl
y~yl S1xi
a-)!Dyi m / nmVnw ' n rmmninivly 'z nimt
'
rnrinrbw
~IV'm
o
r
1~rrIVL'/ D
) 1~
1jz?

70. MS Vatican 266, 38a:2.
71. Scholem, Major Trends, pp. 108-109.

ix

on

P-)3n

am

nrLrim~
I;r nriSI~

?=

anu plin

1L)x I xL x3
=
oin
'ln oiny

rinm

*

x

I-)

rim

?

ninwvnnri
rn

X

nizim~

nivin

ri

rin

hru

X~l

w

?zw IV;I

rmvao

t*Y

31 ml
L?n

j

rTLyi

inirb

-)3!Dn

t-)xv

;) Nh

l

X

i

1
?z

ninnivyu-n

rrnyiv7tatLn

1=3

Dn

1r~y

I;l

.

~~

-non

)xv
n

Yl

ivx

N'i

?

31m

n~m
?ir

-1 3.)n

rrtnuI'~Dw

l?z

L?Dn

innwri?

X~l

?m~

Ir i

?=

rnin

x?

nin

mwn

-.1 31

L?Dn

x?

M~z

t'Nx,

piny

nv3Y7vVri

nixL?3

w

-ixn3
.

.

1zLi

rnxnNn~w

Irwr

Ix

;inly

20

RONALD C. KIENER

Aside from the hymn for the fifth day, the hymnsfor the second,third,
fourth, sixth, and Sabbathday contain phrasesand unique words lifted
from the Paraphrase.Of the particularinterestare the terms for the ten
Aristotelian categories (eser ha-imriyyot; Tibbonide eser ma'amarot), some

of whichappearin the passageabove. These termsare interesting,for they
representone of the firstattemptsat renderingthesetechnicalphilosophical
terms into Hebrew.73Very few of these terms persistedinto Tibbonide
Hebrew,and some, such as ereshfor "substance,"are uniqueto the Paraphrase and the Shir.74
Finally,and most dubiously,we mayinferthat AbrahamIbn Ezra-not
the most proficientArabist-was familiarwith the Paraphrase,if only for
the fact that he severelycriticizedthe Gaon for his verbosity.75At most,
then, the Paraphrasewas cited or otherwiseutilizedby scholarsin Spain,
France, and Germanyin the latter half of the twelfth century.

c

?

?

72. Ketavim Nivkharim(Jerusalem, 1945), 1:164-170.
73. The Paraphrase contains two accounts of the categories. In both instances the Arabic
original merely mentions "the ten categories" without going into details or naming each of the
categories. The two passages occur in MS Vatican 266, fols. 34b:1 and 39a:1. Below is a chart
comparing the Paraphrase terms with the Tibbonide terms, derived from Judah Ibn Tibbon's
Be'ur Millot Zarot in the introduction to Sefer ha-Emunot ve-ha-De'ot (Josefow, 1885), pp.
11-12.
Ibn Tibbon

Paraphrase
1.
la.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

substance
accident
quantity
quality
time
place
relation
position
possession
action
passion

IVxm ,3'y ,WVZ
,1•p?)
1V ,5
,r•,p
Tx
tat
Tinx
T

5Dte,5Dt
on
,11not,'01t
ninK T,-)
,T~m"p

,W15Y1D
nwis
'vy ,1YD

OYY
,ni
;•
Tx
'n,
,o"t

k

,

5DA,)V
74. Ben-Yehuda's edesh (Thesaurus,p. 78a) is based on Gollancz's rendering of Berechiah's
text, and should be ignored.
75. See his Yesod Mora (Jerusalem, 1970), p. 4, and Malter, Saadia Gaon, p. 283, n. 7.

HEBREW
OFKITABAL-AMANATWA'L-I'TIQADAT
PARAPHRASE

21

In the course of the nineteenthcentury, three distinct theories were
advancedas to the identity of the paraphrasist.
1. P. Blochproposedthat the paraphrasistwas also the authorof the anonymous Shir haYih.ud.76
2. A. Berlinersuggested
the possibilitythat the Paraphraseand one of the
presentlyanonymousHebrew translationsof Saadiah'sJudeo-Arabic
commentaryto the Sefer Ye;irah(not that of Moses b. Joseph of
Lucena)77were made by the same individual.78
3. J. Fiirst proposedthat the paraphrasistwas none other than Berechiah
ha-Nakdan. Many nineteenth-centuryscholars adopted this position,
but it has now been properlydiscarded.

It should be noted that in the case of Bloch's and Berliner'sproposals,
we would still be unableto identifythe paraphrasist.At best, a new seriesof
linkages would be established that might help to create bibliographic
relationships.
Bloch'stheoryis centeredaroundthe termyihiud,"unity,"and its recurring use and function in both the Paraphraseand the Shir ha-Yibud.The
termyihudis indeeda new creationof the Paraphrase,andthe Shirha-Yihiud
does employit prominently.Butthis is hardlyan adequatebasisuponwhich
to draw the conclusionsthat Bloch did. Rather, as Berlinersuggestedin
responseto Bloch, it might be more appropriateto assumethat the author
of the Shir had the Paraphrasebeforehim and drewfrom it in a varietyof
ways.
Berliner'stheorydeservesfurtherconsideration.Thoughboth the Paraphrase and the Sefer Ye;irahtranslationstand outside TibbonideHebrew
syntaxand vocabulary,no correlationcan be establishedon this fact alone.
The Sefer Ye;irahtranslationdoes contain Arabismsand paytanicterms,79
but at best this merelyestablishesa similarculturaland linguisticenvironment for the two works. It may be that the two works are from the same
hand, but that bringsus no closer to knowingthe date or location of the
translator.
76.
77.
78.
79.

Bloch, "Die zweite Uebersetzung," pp. 453-456.
Steinschneider, Hebraeischen Uebersetzungen, pp. 443-448.
Ketavim, 1:159 f.
Steinschneider, Hebraeischen Uebersetzungen, pp. 447-448.

22

RONALD C. KIENER

Two scholarsin the twentiethcenturymadeundocumentedassertionsas
to the geographicoriginsof the Paraphrase.N. Porgessuggestedthat the
Paraphrasederivedfrom Babylonia,s8and Malterput forwardthe suggestion of Palestinianorigins."•There are good reasons for acceptingtheir
generalinclinationto ascribean Easternoriginfor the Paraphrase,though
not as far east as they suggest.
The language and stylistic peculiaritiesof the Paraphraseuniformly
point away from Spain/Provenceand towardthe East.The Kalliriteterminology of the Paraphrasewas unknownamongstSpanishtheologiansof the
tenth and eleventh centuries,and Spanish paytanimcompletelyavoided
Easternstyles of rhyme, meter, and vocabulary.Spanish poetry may be
described as "neoclassical,"tending toward biblical form and Arabic
rhymingpatternswhile avoidingan undueamountof neologisticpyrotechnics.82AbrahamBar IHiyya(d. after 1136),the great Hebrew-writingpreTibbonideSpanishphilosopher,sharesnot a singlevocabularyitemwiththe
Kallirian Hebrew of the Paraphrase.83
Western Europe, soon to be the
the
of
Tibbonide
was
undertaking, not the homeof the Paraphrase,
recipient
be
it
would
used
though
extensivelyby philosophersand their literary
in
and
France
duringthe firstroundof the Maimonidean
opponents Spain
controversy.In fact, though the Tibbonide translationwas availableby
1186, a full generationlater the text of choice in Spain, Provence,and
Germanyremainedthe Paraphrase.84

80. Zeitschrift fiir hebraeische Bibliographie 7 (1903): 38.
81. Saadia Gaon, p. 361.
82. See Schirmann's introduction, Ha-Shirah ha-'Ivrit, 1:23-55, especially 40-42.
83. Such a blanket statement is possible thanks to two studies by I. Efros: "Studies in
Pre-Tibbonian Philosophical Terminology," Jewish Quarterly Review, n.s. 17 (1926/27):
129-164, 323-368, and "More About Abraham b. Hiyya's Philosophical Terminology," ibid.,
n.s. 20 (1929/30): 113-138.
84. The instigator of the controversy in Spain, Rabbi Meir b. Todros ha-Levi Abulafia
(1170?-1244), cites Saadiah from the Paraphrase version. See Kitab al-Rasd'li, ed. J. Brill
(Paris, 1871), pp. 14, 36-37, 57. Brill was unaware of the existence of the Paraphrase; see ibid.,
p. 137n. On Abulafia, see B. Septimus, Hispano-Jewish Culture in Transition: The Career and
Controversiesof Ramah (Cambridge, Mass., 1982); and on the controversy in general, see Y.
Baer, A History of the Jews in Christian Spain (Philadelphia, 1961-66), 1:96-110. In Provence,
both Aaron b. Meshullam (d. 1210) and the Tosafist Samson b. Abraham of Sens (ca.
1155-1225) quoted from the seventh treatise of the Paraphrase; see Kitab al-Rasd'il:57, pp.
136-137. Interestingly, D. Silver claimed that a Saadianic interpretation of Maimonides which
was current during the early controversy illustrated "the quick proliferation of ideas through
[the Tibbonide] translation" (Maimonidean Criticism and the Maimonidean Controversy

OFKITABAL-AMANATWA'L-I'TIQADAT
PARAPHRASE
HEBREW

23

And however popular the Paraphrasewas with rationalists,it was
thoroughlyembracedby Jewish mystics duringthe twelfth and thirteenth
centuries.Echoesof the Paraphraseappearin an extremelydisparatecrosssectionof this earlyJewishmysticalliterature,andit wouldnot be unfairto
assume that furtherreverberationsof the Paraphrasewill be uncoveredas
the Paraphrasebecomesbetterknownamongstmodernscholarsof the early
Kabbalah.The ecstatic panentheism,the visually resplendentKavod,and
the air of esotericismthat was fosteredby the Paraphrasemadethis unusual
versionof Saadiaha favoriteof Jewishmystics.No wonderthatthe German
pietistsdeclaredSaadiahto be "a masterof secrets"(ba'alsod).85In general,
it is not that the Paraphraselaid the theologicalfoundationfor pietismor
early Kabbalah;rather, there are numerouspassages in the Paraphrase
which were thought to legitimatealready-heldbeliefs.For the pietistsand
other medievals,the Paraphrasetook on the statureof authority.For the
Jewishmystics,the Paraphrasewas not so muchinfluentialas it was legitimating. There was an enormousappealin being able to cite the venerable
Gaon as an authority,and Jewish mystics did not fail to do so when the
opportunityarose.86
[Leiden, 1965], pp. 119-120). Silver was thus also unaware of the existence of the Paraphrase.
In Germany, there is Moses b. Hisdai in his Ketav Tamim,written sometime between 1210 and
1234. Also, see the comments by E. Urbach, "The Participation of German and French
Scholars in the Controversy About Maimonides and His Works" [Hebrew], Zion 12(1947/48):
150-154.
85. See Dan, Esoteric Theology, p. 23, n. 5; idem, Studies in Ashkenazi-Hasidic Literature
[Hebrew] (Ramat Gan, 1975), p. 32, n. 9; Scholem, Major Trends, p. 86; and I. Weinstock,
"Ha-im Hayah Rav Sa'adyah Ga'on Ba'al Sod?" in Be-Ma'agalei ha-Nigleh ve-ha-Nistar
(Jerusalem, 1969), pp. 81-106. It may be that Saadiah became known as a mystic in later times
through a pseudo-Saadianic German pietist commentary to the Sefer Ye;irahthat was partially
published in the Mantua 1562 edition of the Sefer Ye;irah.
86. Aside from the Shir ha- Yibud,the oldest extant work that can be directly linked to the
Ashkenazi Ijasidim (see Dan, Esoteric Theology, pp. 47-48), the Paraphrase appears in at least
two other German pietist works: Judah he-Hasid's Sefer Iasidim, ed. J. Wistinetzki (Frankfurt
a. M., 1924), pp. 38-39, contains a portion of the fifth treatise (MS Vatican 266, fols. 74b:
1-75a:1 and 71a:2); see also Eleazar of Worms's Sefer ha-Roqeah ha-Gadol (Jerusalem, 1960),
pp. 33-36. Even the very penitential terminology of the Roqeab draws from the fifth treatise of
the Paraphrase, which abounds with the terms basid and moreh. See I. Marcus, Piety and
Society (Leiden, 1981), pp. 109-129, 144-145. The pietist R. Abraham b. Azriel quotes a long
passage from the ninth treatise of the Paraphrase in the midst of a discussion of Maimonidean
issues. See Urbach, "Participation of German and French Scholars," pp. 150-152. As Scholem
has pointed out, the demanding pietist insistence upon strict and even legally excessive observance of the Law is also rooted in the Paraphrase's formulations on the topic. See Scholem,
Major Trends, p. 97, and MS Vatican 266, fol. 72b:2. The Paraphrase is also quoted in the

24

RONALD C. KIENER

In only one partof Europedid Kallirian/Palestinianstylestake root. In
the ninth century, liturgicalpoetry of a Palestinianmold blossomed in
Venosaand Oria, southernItaly.87Nowhere else in Byzantiumwere these
Palestinianstyles emulated.88In 1054, a descendantof the first Byzantine
paytanimcomposed a narrativehistoryof his family'sexploits in rhymed
saj'-like couplets. This "Chronicle of Abhima'ag(b. Paltiel)" contains
numerousneologismsreminiscentof Kalliritecreativity;however,none of
the unique coinages of the Paraphraseappearin the Chronicle.89
Even more interestingis the fact that eleventh-centuryByzantiumwas
witness to an amazing literaryand social phenomenonwhich Z. Ankori
termed"theByzantineKaraiteLiteraryProject."Thisprojectwas a massive
undertakingwhichhad as its goal the translationinto Hebrewof the entire
Arabic Karaitelibrary.90Unlike the later Tibbonideprojectsponsoredby
Meshullamb. Jacob of Lunel,the Byzantineeffort was not broughtabout
by an unfamiliaritywith ArabicamongstByzantinepartisans.The desired
audiencewas not internal,but external.Set in motion by Tobiasb. Moses
"the Translator,"the Byzantine Karaite Literary Project "was a wellcalculatedand well-plannedcommunalundertaking"designedto win the

literature ascribed to the so-called Iyyun circle; see G. Scholem, Les Origines de la Kabbale
(Paris, 1966), pp. 327-367. In one of the Iyyun texts, the Tefillah le-Rav Nehunya ben haQanah, the sefirot are described as balaqim she-einam mithalqim ("indivisible particles"; see
Scholem, Originesde la Kabbale,p. 274, n. 109);this is precisely the Paraphrase definition of the
"eternal spiritual beings," or atoms, of Plato's theory of creation (MS Vatican 266, fol. 18a:2;
Ibn Tibbon: ha-halakim asher lo yehalku). In this way the sefirot were defined as eternal
spiritual entities, a definition which remained valid for later generations. Zoharic meditations
on the tenth sefirah, Kingdom (malkhut), also resort to visual imagery and panentheist notions,
but no direct tie to the Paraphrase can yet be established. On the Shekhinah in the Sefer
ha-Zohar, see I. Tishby, Mishnat ha-Zohar, 3d ed. (Jerusalem, 1971), 1:219-231. The fourteenth-century kabbalist Menalem Recanati quotes the Paraphrase in his Bible commentary in
defense of the kabbalistic doctrine of shemilot ("cosmic cycles"); see Perush RabbenuMenahem
me-Reqanati (Lublin, 1605), sec. Behar: 31a-b, and cf. MS Vatican 266, fol. 14b:1-2.
87. A. Sharf, Byzantine Jewryfrom Justinian to the Fourth Crusade(New York, 1971), pp.
171-172; and Schirmann, Studies, 2:9-16.
88. Sharf, Byzantine Jewry, p. 174.
89. This Chronicle was first published as Sefer ha-Yubasin by A. Neubauer in Medieval
Jewish Chronicles, 2:111-132: Notice should be taken of the word nimus in the Chronicle, not
as "school of thought" (Paraphrase) or "law" (Bar Hiyya; see H. Wolfson, "Additional Notes
to the Article on the Classification of Sciences in Medieval Jewish Philosophy," Hebrew Union
College Annual 3 [1926]: 374-375), but as "road, way." See R. Mirkin, ed., Megillat Abima'a;
Me'ubedet u-Mugeshet ke-fHomerle-Milon (Jerusalem, 1965), p. 139.
90. Ankori, Karaites in Byzantium, pp. 354-452.

HEBREWPARAPHRASE
OF KITAB AL.-AMANAT WA'L-I'TIQADAT

25

heartsand mindsof ByzantineRabbaniteJews.9'The projectwas a militant
ideologicaleffortof communalproportions,not the resultof the curiosityof
a scholarlyelite.
Could it be that in the midst of this flurryof Karaiteliteraryactivity
there arose a Rabbanite translator who sought to give the despised
"Pithomite"enemyof the Karaiteshis own Hebrewvoice?It wouldonly be
naturalthat Saadiah,so much the focus of Karaiteire in the newly translated Hebrewliterature,be made availableto the same Byzantineaudience
that now had the Karaite castigationsin hand. Kallirian styles were in
vogue, as the Chronicle of AIima'ag and Italian poetry testify. And it
should be recalledthat the Germanpietists,the firstto use the Paraphrase,
attributedtheir esotericato an Italian conduit.92
Thus, the existenceof a ByzantineKaraiteTranslationProjectprovides
the heretoforemissinglink with regardto the originsof the Paraphrase:it
providesthe propersocial and intellectualcontext for an eleventh-century
translationof Saadiah'sKitabal-Amcndt.
On the other hand, the Paraphraseexhibitsnone of the telltaleindications of Byzantinecomposition,such as the appearanceof Latin or Greek
interpositions.Nor is there any indicationof an early or prolongeduse of
the Paraphrasein Italy. Finally, we would be hard-pressedto find a
RabbaniteByzantinesufficientlyfamiliarwith Arabic.93Onlyan immigrant
Rabbanitecould have composedthe Paraphrase,for in ByzantiumArabic
was the exclusivepossessionof the Karaites:no Karaitecould be responsible for a loving translationof the despisedSaadiah'smasterpiece!
Indications point to the East, though with no resolution. Whether
Babylonian,Palestinian,or Byzantine/Italian,the Paraphrasemust have
answereda need. In the eleventhcentury,that needwas createdby Karaism,
burdened with its antagonistic "Saadiah complex." The paraphrasist
respondedto that need.
TrinityCollege
Hartford,Conn.

91. Ibid., p. 416.
92. Dan, Esoteric Theology, pp. 14-20.
93. Tobias b. Eliezer, the most important Rabbanite homilist of Byzantine Jewry, is typical
in his ignorance of Arabic. See Ankori, Karaites in Byzantium, p. 290, n. 114.

Sponsor Documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close